Ex Parte Falk et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 29, 201412322897 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ANDREAS FALK, KAREL DE BRABANDERE, FRANK GREIZER, MATTHIAS VICTOR, TORBEN WESTPAHL, HENRIK WOLF, and THORSTEN BUELO __________ Appeal 2012-009120 Application 12/322,8971 Technology Center 2800 ____________ Before TERRY J. OWENS, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and GEORGE C. BEST, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims 1-11, 18, and 19. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Appellants’ invention is directed to a three-phase inverter with a circuit arrangement having a DC voltage input (2) for least one direct voltage source (3) and a three-phase alternating voltage output (15) for 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is SMA Solar Technology AG. (App. Br. 1.) Appeal 2012-009120 Application 12/322,897 2 feeding into a three-phase alternating voltage mains (19) (Spec. 1:4-8; Figure 1). Claims 1 and 18 are illustrative: 1. A three-phase inverter with a circuit arrangement having a DC-voltage input for at least one direct voltage source and a three-phase alternating voltage output consisting solely of three output terminals, wherein each output terminal is associated with a respective phase, the three output terminals configured to feed into a three-phase alternating voltage mains when coupled thereto, wherein said inverter comprises a three- phase bridge circuit as well as an intermediate circuit, wherein said three-phase inverter is configured to be transformerless, wherein a neutral conductor of the three-phase alternating voltage mains is separated from a central point of the intermediate circuit. 18. A three-phase inverter, comprising: a DC voltage input with a positive DC potential terminal and a negative DC potential terminal; an intermediate circuit connected to the DC voltage input, and having a midpoint node associated therewith; a three-phase bridge circuit connected to the intermediate circuit, and comprising three bridge branches, each associated with a respective phase; [and] solely three output terminals coupled to respective output nodes of the three bridge branches of the three-phase bridge circuit, so that the positive DC potential terminal and the negative DC potential terminal are configured to adjust solely to a conductor to conductor voltage of the three output terminals. Appellants appeal the following rejections: 1. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), as unpatentable over Shekhawat et al. (US 4,670,828, patented June 2, 1987). Appeal 2012-009120 Application 12/322,897 3 2. Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shekhawat in view of Nielsen (US 2008/0197706 A1, published Aug. 21, 2008). Appellants’ arguments focus solely on independent claims 1 and 18 (App. Br. 3-7). The following rejections are listed in the Final Office Action and the Examiner’s Answer (Final Off. Act. 6-15; Ans. 7-16) but are not identified in the Brief as being grounds of rejection to be reviewed: 3. Claims 2, 3, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shekhawat in view of Nielsen and Chen et al. (A Novel Inverter-Output Passive Filter for Reducing Both Differential- and Common-Mode dv/dt at the Motor Terminals in PWM Drive Systems, 54 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INDUS. ELEC. 419- 426 (2007)). 4. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shekhawat in view of Nielsen and Tanaka et al. (US 6,795,323 B2, patented Sept. 21, 2004). 5. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shekhawat in view of Nielsen and Bakran et al. (US 6,930,899 B2, patented Aug. 16, 2005). 6. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shekhawat in view of Nielsen and Victor et al. (US 2005/0286281 A1, published Dec. 29, 2005). 7. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shekhawat in view of Chen. Appeal 2012-009120 Application 12/322,897 4 Because the Examiner maintains these rejections and Appellants have not contested them other than to request the rejections of the pending claims be withdrawn (App. Br. 7), the dependent claims will stand or fall with our analysis of the independent claims 1 and 18. ISSUE Did the Examiner reversibly err in finding that Shekhawat discloses “solely three output terminals coupled to respective nodes of the three bridge branches” as recited in claim 18, and finding that Shekhawat discloses “a neutral conductor of the three-phase alternating voltage mains is separated from a central point of the intermediate circuit” as recited in claim 1? We decide this issue in the negative with regard to claim 18 and we decide in the affirmative with regard to claim 1. FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSES Claim 18: § 102(b) Appellants argue that Shekhawat fails to disclose that “solely three output terminals coupled to respective nodes of the three bridge branches” as recited in claim 18 (App. Br. 3). Appellants contend that Shekhawat discloses four outputs to the AC load as shown in Shekhawat’s Figures 2 and 3, where the load is connected to the midpoint node N in addition to junction 13A (App. Br. 4-6). Appellants contend that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand Shekhawat’s connection of the load at midpoint N as being an “output” connection to the load (App. Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 1-3). Appellants contend that page 1, lines 9-13, page 3, lines 31-34, and page 6, lines 9-13 of the Specification establish the proper claim construction of “outputs” as being each of the terminals exiting the inverter that couples to Appeal 2012-009120 Application 12/322,897 5 the mains (Reply Br. 2-3). Appellants do not contest whether Shekhawat discloses the other limitations of claim 18. The Examiner finds that Shekhawat’s Figure 1 shows solely three outputs from the inverter coupled to the respective output nodes of the three bridge branches of the three-phase bridge circuit (Ans. 5). The Examiner finds that Shekhawat’s neutral point N is not an output and that only VA, VB, and VC are outputs. Id. We begin our analysis by construing the disputed language of claim 18. Claim 18 recites, in relevant part, “solely three output terminals coupled to respective output nodes of the three bridge branches of the three-phase bridge circuit.” As shown in Appellants’ Figure 1, the output terminals 11 are coupled to the output nodes of the three bridge branches (i.e., 6, 7, 8) of the three-phrase bridge circuit. In other words, the disputed limitation in claim 18 requires that only three output terminals are coupled to respective output nodes of the three bridge branches. The Specification describes that the lines leading from the generator 3 is a DC input 2 to the inverter circuitry and the lines leading away from the inverter circuitry to the low voltage mains 19 are AC output 11 or 15. In other words, an “output” in the context of the Specification is a line where AC voltage is lead away from the inverter toward a load. With this proper claim construction, we agree with the Examiner that Shekhawat discloses only three output terminals (i.e., VA, VB, and VC) coupled to respective output nodes of the bridge branches (i.e., 13a, 13b, 13c). Notably, Appellants do not dispute that VA, VB, and VC are output terminals coupled to nodes of bridge branches 13a, 13b, and 13c. Rather, Appellants contend that when the inverter is coupled to a load, the circuit Appeal 2012-009120 Application 12/322,897 6 includes a fourth output at the node N as shown in Figure 2 or Figure 3 of Shekhawat. We disagree as Appellants’ argument contradicts the proper construction of the claim term “output.” The line leading from the load to node N would be considered an input to the inverter, not an output. Indeed, even Figure 2 shows that the current flows in the direction of the arrows, which are directed toward the inverter as an input (Shekhawat, col. 3, ll. 60- 68). On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of claim 18 over Shekhawat. For the same reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claim 19 over Shekhawat in view of Chen. Claim 1: § 103(a) Appellants argue that Shekhawat fails to teach or suggest a neutral conductor of the three-phase alternating voltage mains is separated from a central point of the intermediate circuit (App. Br. 7). Appellants contend that Shekhawat’s load 36 is connected to the central point N of the intermediate circuit C1, C2 (App. Br. 7). Claim 1 recites that “a neutral conductor of the three-phase alternating voltage mains [N] is separated from a central point of the intermediate circuit [M]” (claim 1; Fig 1). Claim 1 requires that the neutral conductor of the alternating voltage mains is separate from the intermediate circuit M as shown in Figure 1 (Spec. 6:25-27). The Examiner finds that Shekhawat describes in Figure 1 that the central point of the intermediate circuit (N) is separated from the outputs VA, VB, and VC, which are connected to the alternating voltage mains by the BDS (bi-directional switches) (Ans. 19). Appeal 2012-009120 Application 12/322,897 7 However, the Examiner’s finding regarding Shekhawat’s Figure 1 does not address how the neutral conductor of the three-phase alternating voltage mains N couples to the intermediate circuit (i.e., N in Shekhawat). As disclosed in Shekhawat, the AC load is not shown in Figure 1, so Figure 1 cannot show how the neutral conductor of the alternating voltage mains (i.e., the load in Shekhawat) is separated from or coupled to the intermediate circuit. Only in Figure 3 of Shekhawat is it disclosed that the AC load is coupled so that the neutral conductor from the AC load 36 is coupled to the intermediate circuit (i.e., N) in Shekhawat as argue by Appellants. Because the Examiner has not satisfied the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, we reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 1 and the § 103 rejections of dependent claims 2-11. The Examiner does not rely on any of the secondary references to cure the argued deficiency with respect to Shekhawat. DECISION The Examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). ORDER AFFIRMED-IN-PART cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation